Judges. Abraham Kuruvilla
rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_1a1e7bac-ac10-50a4-9531-e32eb7985572">145 the Sidonians in the northwest, the Hivites in the northeast, and the Canaanites in the southeast. The Israelites are in for a tough time, surrounded by enemies!
When the Israelites “groan” or “cry” to Yahweh, an immediate response from the latter takes place only in 2:18; 3:9; and 3:15 (see paradigm above). In the rest of the narratives, the reader is in suspense: Will Yahweh act? Clearly the relationship between God and his people deteriorates with time. Indeed, the entire paradigm, first set in 2:11–19 and then exemplified perfectly in Othniel (3:7–11), crumbles as the narration proceeds in the rest of the Body of Judges. Exum’s observation is perceptive:
Although we are led to expect a consistent and regular pattern, what happens is that the framework itself breaks down. Rather than attributing it to careless redaction, I take it as a sign of further dissolution. The political and moral instability depicted in Judges is reflected in the textual instability. The framework deconstructs itself, so to speak, and the cycle of apostasy and deliverance becomes increasingly murky.146
Yahweh’s lack of response to the burden of his people in later narratives is because the Israelites’ “cry” does not necessarily include repentance.147 The “groaning” (and later “crying”) of the Israelites in 2:18 reflects their weeping (and sacrifices) in 2:4–5—neither had any indication of being accompanied by repentance. Though bWv, shub, “turn back” (frequently denoting repentance in the OT) occurs in 2:19, that did not constitute repentance towards Yahweh. It was actually the other way round—a deeper plunge of the Israelites into apostasy, their “return” to idolatry. It was as if they had repented of Yahwism! “Indeed one could reasonably argue that the cries so described have no spiritual or theological component, but are simply ‘the loud and agonized “crying” of someone in acute distress, calling for help and seeking deliverance.’”148 This sense of “crying” sans repentance explains the repeated cycle of evildoing in Judges: they “continued to do evil” in 3:12; 4:1; 10:6; 13:1), they had never stopped! That, of course, makes God’s compassion even more remarkable as, time and again, he sends deliverers/judges to relieve his people from their enemies (2:18; 3:9, 15; 4:6–7; 6:12, 14, 16; 13:3–5).
The rest of the book details how everything falls apart from this point, each leader worse than the previous one. This spiral downwards is visible even here at the beginning. Earlier, in 2:12, the Israelites were said to have “gone after” (yrEx]a; $l;h', halak ’akhare) false gods; here, in 2:17, they have “lusted after” (or “played harlot after,” yrEx]a; hn"z", zanah ’akhare) those gods: they had gone from bad to worse!149 In fact, they were “turning aside quickly” from the obedient ways of their fathers (2:17), each succeeding generation “being more corrupt” than the previous (2:19), with a greater intentionality about their apostasy—“they did not abandon their practices or their stubborn ways” (2:19).150 Unfortunately, Yahweh’s compassion and deliverance (2:18) has no lasting effect on his people.
The last portion of Pericope 1, 2:1–5, is reflected in this pericope, in 2:20–22: both mention “covenant” (2:1, 2, 20), “fathers” (2:1, 20, 22) “obey/listen” ([mv, shm‘, 2:20), and “not drive out” (vrg, grsh, in 2:3; and vry, yrsh, in 2:21). But while in the earlier pericope, Yahweh spoke directly to his people through his angel (2:1–5), here in 2:20–22, he only speaks about them rather obliquely. The distancing is obvious. Besides, earlier, Yahweh only reminded Israel of his threat not to evacuate the inhabitants of the land (2:3); here, in 2:22, he actually decides to make good on that threat, declaring that he will “not drive out . . . any man from the nations” (2:21), not even one! It appears, from the language of 2:21—“I, also, for my part, will no longer drive out” Israel’s enemies—that, since “the nation has transgressed My covenant” (2:20), Yahweh, too, was going to hold off on his promise of giving his people success in the conquest. This announcement of the divine intention to leave Israel’s opponents in the Promised Land also had other goals besides chastisement (2:6–21): it would be a “test” of Israel’s adherence to Yahweh’s covenant and his commandments—keeping the way of Yahweh and walking in it (2:22; also 3:4)—and it would also be a “test” of Israel’s capacity for war (3:1–2). But these are not all disparate tests/purposes: it is obvious that all of these are wrapped into the single goal of God: to have his people walk in his ways.151
As Prologue II concludes with 3:5–6, we run into a couple of surprises: it is said that the Israelites “served [db[, ‘bd] their gods,” i.e., all the gods of the peoples just mentioned: Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and the Jebusites (3:5)!152 This was a wholesale defection from Yahweh to harlotry! Talking of which, we are also surprised to spot another new datum regarding the apostasy of the Israelites: their intermarriage with the inhabitants of the lands (along with a repeated affirmation that they served other gods, 3:6)—the first time such an accusation of exogamy is brought against God’s people in Judges. That was a clear violation of warnings given in Exod 34:16; Deut 7:3–4; and Josh 23:12–13. By these unsanctioned unions, societal structures would be destroyed, religious affections diluted, and Yahwistic passions adulterated. According to Chisholm, this is “the missing piece in the puzzle that explains how the compromises of Jdg 1:1—2:5 led to the outright paganism of 2:6—3:6 . . . for close alliances of this type pollute the covenant community and inevitably lead to compromise and sin.”153 One might picture the causal relationships that link Prologues I and II this way.154
Intermarriage is thus the “middle term” that demonstrates the sequence: living → intermarrying → serving. This particular sin had not been mentioned thus far; instead, what we found was the endogamous marriage of Othniel and Achsah, the former being the first and exemplar judge of the book (3:7–11). But the Israelites fail to follow that perfect model and lapse into harlotry, in more ways than one (2:2, 11–13, 17, 19; 3:6).
Thus Prologue I/Pericope 1 (Jdg 1:1—2:5) appears to take place before the apostasy of the Israelites. The consequence of living with the Canaanites was intermarriage, that led to the Israelites’ subsequent infidelity to Yahweh. So Prologue II (2:6–3:6) is a “narrative abstract, an outline” of this progressively increasing unfaithfulness that is detailed in the remainder of the book and is contemporaneous with the accounts of the judges (Body: Jdg 3:7—16:31).155 All that to say, forsaking God has its consequences.
2.2. Judges 3:7–11
| THEOLOGICAL FOCUS 2.2 | ||
| 2 | Personal experience of God produces unwavering commitment to him, with minimizing of self so as to give him glory (3:7–11). | |
| 2.2 | Faithful commitment to God gives him the glory and minimizes self (3:7–11). |
NOTES 2.2
2.2 Faithful commitment to God gives him the glory and minimizes self.
The final part of Pericope 2 is the narrative of the first judge, Othniel (3:7–11). His story is launched with a formulaic report, “And the sons of Israel did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh” (3:7; also seen in the paradigm in 2:11, replicated at the beginning of the narratives of each of the major judges: 3:12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1). It is likely that Othniel is part of the post-Joshua generation; his label as the son of Caleb’s “younger brother” (in 1:13 and 3:9), emphasizes this generational distinction.